tiltbillings wrote:That would be a problem, but luckily that is not what the double truth business is about.

What is the differentiation then, in your words? Is one set of designations somehow 'less designated' than the other?

Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section? There is no sense in that commentarial quote one is higher than the other; rather, it is different ways of talking about the same thing -- one way is not better than the other. As I have said before, I have no idea what you think the two truth notion is about, since you have refused to say, which makes for contentious dialogue, or no real dialogue at all (and it is not for the lack of asking).

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way

The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.

tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.

This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.

tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.

It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).

I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way

The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.

Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.

tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.

This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.

So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so.

tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.

It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).

Fine; however, that still say not a thing about the double truth notion as quoted in the commentarial passage I quoted.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

Metta,Retro.

Here it is here in all its offensive glory:

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā [“relative truth”], whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā ["highest truth"].

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā.

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā.

There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā.

It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55

Do show us us the terrible slanderous nature of this quote.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Ñāṇa wrote:The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.

Although this thread is already very long , I would like to comment on this statement.

This is not true.

The two truth theory DOES NOT explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division.

One of Buddhist master said, (which I cannot quote here )

If we see two truth as 2, it means we don't understand what is 2 truths.If we see two truth as actually 1, it also means we don't understand what is 2 truths.

However, if we can see that 2 truths is actually not 1 nor 2, it means we have correctly understood it.

Our body consists of so many parts.

Do you see your body as 1 or 2? Or this body is not 1 nor 2?

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

tiltbillings wrote:Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.... So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so....

We've already discussed this in detail here, and here, and here, etc., etc. In the first thread I quoted the relevant passages from Karunadasa's essay on the commentarial dhamma theory.

I am not going to rummage through that thread. You can far more easily quote what you think is necessary; however, the dhamma theory, as Ven Karunadasa makes quite clear, goes through a wide range of permutations, all of which I do not need to buy into to see value in the double truth notion.

And this is particularly so taking the above slanderous commentarial quote as being the expression of the double truth notion that I would work with. What is interesting about this slanderous quote is that neither the supposed "conventional" and expressions and the supposed "ultimate" expressions of the Dhamma are held to be anything other than of equal standing. This nicely negates the hierarchy problem, putting the teachings into a utilitarian and pragmatic framework, where they belong.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:And this is particularly so taking the above slanderous commentarial quote as being the expression of the double truth notion that I would work with. What is interesting about this slanderous quote is that neither the supposed "conventional" and expressions and the supposed "ultimate" expressions of the Dhamma are held to be anything other than of equal standing. This nicely negates the hierarchy problem, putting the teachings into a utilitarian and pragmatic framework, where they belong.

You're certainly free to invent your own version of a nominal two truth theory, but that basically negates the entire premise. At any rate, it's far easier to avoid this paramattha notion altogether. In this way one is less prone to tacitly condoning errant views -- views which you know still permeate much modern Theravāda discourse where the "big four" are taken as sacred cows. Ven. Ñāṇananda:

If there is no sub­stance in any­thing, what is left is empti­ness. But many peo­ple are afraid of words like śūnyatā. They want to pro­tect their four.

And:

If one does not approach the com­men­tar­ial lit­er­a­ture with a crit­i­cal eye, one would be trapped. Unfor­tu­nately many are.

Ñāṇa wrote:You're certainly free to invent your own version of a nominal two truth theory, but that basically negates the entire premise. .

You have a point there. Different people clearly have different definitions.

On the other hand, this whole discussion (long before you joined it) seems to revolve around criticising a particular interpretation that some have decided is what "two truths" has to mean. This basically shuts down any attempts at discussing some of the interesting issues. It drowns out any attempt at conversation by forcing it into the "Commentators bad, one or two modern scholars good" dichotomy.

mikenz66 wrote:On the other hand, this whole discussion (long before you joined it) seems to revolve around criticising a particular interpretation that some have decided is what "two truths" has to mean.

That's quite disingenuous, but perhaps you really don't see the problem yet.

The issue is not one particular interpretation or another, it is the idea altogether; in other words, the idea is being extracted from the Suttas for no apparent reason. It does not add anything to our understanding of the Dhamma.

I shall be precise: the bifurcation of sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (which is precisely this double truth idea under discussion) is papañca-saññā-sankhā.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Paramattha: sacca-vacana-Desanā 'truth or term, exposition that is true in the highest or ultimate sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' vohāra-sacca which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' sammuti-sacca in Skr: samvrti-satya The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith unconfused insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech vohāra-vacana.

It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense paramattha-dhammā But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language paramattha-desanā namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups khandha elements dhātu or sense-sources āyatana and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics tilakkhana are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it;would not be right to say that 'the groups' khandha feel shame, etc

It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' vohāra-sacca being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes.

The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit or direct meaning' nītattha and 'implicit meaning to be inferred' neyyattha Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9:,These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne Tathāgata uses without misapprehending them.; See also S. I. 25.

The term paramattha in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathāvatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka see: Guide, p. 62. App: vohāra.

The commentarial discussions on these truths Com. to D. 9 and M. 5 have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge London, 1963, pp. 361ff.

In Mahāyana, the Mādhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

daverupa wrote:That's quite disingenuous, but perhaps you really don't see the problem yet.

The problem I see is that when I ask for specific comment on some sutta quotes all I seem to get is the same old papanca rhetoric.

I would actually be interested in a real discussion of the issues.

As I said, different ways of expressing Dhamma seemed quite obvious to me in the quotes I gave above: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10184#p155954 (and hundreds of others I could quote...). However, as I pointed out in this other thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10222#p156368 it may be that the more "organized" lists one sees in those, and other, Samyutta Nikaya suttas were a development of the ideas expressed in the ancient parts of the Sutta Nipata, for example, so perhaps I am over interpreting them, and I should be more guided by the Sutta Nippat-style suttas.

I think that these are interesting issues, and I find it puzzling that attempts to discuss them lead to such negative comments from some members.

tiltbillings wrote:And this is particularly so taking the above slanderous commentarial quote as being the expression of the double truth notion that I would work with. What is interesting about this slanderous quote is that neither the supposed "conventional" and expressions and the supposed "ultimate" expressions of the Dhamma are held to be anything other than of equal standing. This nicely negates the hierarchy problem, putting the teachings into a utilitarian and pragmatic framework, where they belong.

You're certainly free to invent your own version of a nominal two truth theory, but that basically negates the entire premise.

I don't have to invent anything. Just taking the commentary seriously on this matter.

At any rate, it's far easier to avoid this paramattha notion altogether. In this way one is less prone to tacitly condoning errant views -- views which you know still permeate much modern Theravāda discourse where the "big four" are taken as sacred cows.

The problem actually resides in your direction of laying on top the commentary an later absolutist readings of the Dhamma theory, but more importantly, the commentarial accounting of the double truth does not make a hierarchical distinction.

Ven. Ñāṇananda:

If there is no sub­stance in any­thing, what is left is empti­ness. But many peo­ple are afraid of words like śūnyatā. They want to pro­tect their four.

And:

If one does not approach the com­men­tar­ial lit­er­a­ture with a crit­i­cal eye, one would be trapped. Unfor­tu­nately many are.

Word.

Nothing new here.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

I shall be precise: the bifurcation of sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (which is precisely this double truth idea under discussion) is papañca-saññā-sankhā.

So you claim, but you have yet to actually provide a carefully reasoned argument to back it up. The Buddha himself say that he speaks to the level of his audience, and that is something that can be seen within the suttas. What is is interesting is that the anti-rebirthers use that as an explanation for the appearance of rebirth talk in the suttas.

There is nothing in the commentarial passage I quoted that run contrary to what the suttas teach. I have yet to see anyone here show otherwise. I keep asking and all I am getting are assertion without any real back-up behind them. Show me I am wrong. Beat the crap out of the commentary passage. Make an actual argument for your position.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.